(PC) Aaron v. Cano et al, No. 1:2008cv00664 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER VACATING 15 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 28 Motion signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/4/2010. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Aaron v. Cano et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE AARON, JR., 10 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00664-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 FINDINGS AND v. 12 ORDER VACATING RECOMMENDATIONS S. CANO, et al., (Doc. No. 15) and 13 Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION 14 (Doc. No. 28) 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff George Aaron, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. Discussion 20 A. 21 On May 28, 2009, the Court issued findings and recommendations that recommended that 22 certain claims from Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. (Doc. #15.) Plaintiff filed objections to 23 those findings and recommendations on June 16, 2009. (Doc. #21.) May 28, 2009 Findings and Recommendations 24 The Court issued the findings and recommendations after it received notice from Plaintiff 25 that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the Court’s May 8, 2009 26 screening order. (Docs. #13, 14.) Plaintiff was unaware that proceeding on the cognizable claims 27 meant dismissal of the non-cognizable claims. The Court allowed Plaintiff to file an amended 28 complaint to cure the deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims. Plaintiff filed his amended 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaint on October 21, 2009. (Doc. #26.) The Court will, therefore, vacate the May 28, 2009 2 findings and recommendations that recommended dismissal of those non-cognizable claims. 3 B. 4 On January 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting “Consideration or Omission of 8th 5 Amendment Claim Alleged in First Amendment[sic] Complaint.” (Doc. #28.) Plaintiff explains that 6 he added a new Eighth Amendment claim in his amended complaint. Plaintiff notes that the Court’s 7 May 8, 2009 screening order warned Plaintiff not to add new, unrelated claims in his amended 8 complaint. Plaintiff requests that the Court ignore or strike the Eighth Amendment claim raised in 9 his amended complaint in order to avoid sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order. 10 Rather than striking individual claims and sections from Plaintiff’s complaint or requesting 11 that Plaintiff to file a new amended complaint, the Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint at a later 12 date. If Plaintiff’s amended complaint improperly raises new claims, the Court will dismiss those 13 improper claims. The Court will not sanction Plaintiff for raising a new and unrelated Eighth 14 Amendment claim in his amended complaint. 15 II. Plaintiff’s January 14, 2010 Motion Conclusion and Order 16 The Court finds that the May 28, 2009 findings and recommendations recommending 17 dismissal of certain claims from Plaintiff’s complaint should be vacated because Plaintiff elected 18 to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies in those claims. Further, the Court will deny 19 Plaintiff’s request to strike portions of his amended complaint and will simply screen Plaintiff’s 20 complaint at a later date and dismiss any claims that were improperly raised. 21 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Court’s May 28, 2009 Findings and Recommendations are VACATED; and 23 2. Plaintiff’s January 14, 2010 motion is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: ie14hj June 4, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.